The previous blog dealt with a complaint the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) rejected in relation to a RTE Ray D’Arcy Show item on the marriage referendum. This blog focuses on another complaint made in relation to the same show but this time on an item which dealt with abortion. Again, the BAI gets it badly wrong.
A quick reminder of the relevant legal background will be helpful. Under s. 39 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, broadcasters are required to present news and current affairs items in an objective and impartial manner without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views. Under s. 42 of the Act, the BAI is required to prepare a code governing broadcasting standards and practices. This code is to provide for the duties outlined under s. 39 of the Act. The BAI has fulfilled its obligations in this regard: its “Code of Fairness Impartiality and Objectivity in News and Current Affairs” enumerates 29 rules broadcasters are expected to abide by.
The complaint in question was made in connection with an item on the Ray D’Arcy Show on August 4th last year. The item was an interview with the Fine Gael Councillor Kate O’Connell in which she openly advocated for the legal permissibility of aborting unborn children who are diagnosed with a severe life-limiting condition as well as for abortion on much wider grounds. Her advocacy was aired in the context of a discussion about her own experiences with pregnancy.
The complaint alleged that Ms. O’Connell was given free rein to air her views without being challenged by the presenter; and in fact the presenter, because he did not in any way challenge or question her pro-choice views or interview anyone else who challenged or questioned her views, implied support for the views of Ms. O’Connell. Hence the complaint alleged that the item was neither objective nor impartial.
The BAI rejected the complaint. It offered three reasons.
First, the BAI argued that the item was primarily a human interest topic. The implication here is that RTE was not as obliged to abide by the BAI Code’s rules as it would if the item was more focused on the current affairs aspect of the topic. This has no basis in either the Broadcasting Act or the BAI’s own Code. The Act and the Code refer to the “treatment” of current affairs “content”. As soon as current affairs content is treated, the Act and the Code are engaged. It does not matter if most of the rest of the item is purely personal interest in nature. And in fact very little of the item in question was exclusively personal interest in nature – Ms. O’Connell’s detailing of her personal experiences with regard to her pregnancy were intertwined with her own political and moral views regarding abortion.
Second, while the BAI goes on to acknowledge that the content “constituted current affairs” (which begs the question, why mention that is was predominantly a human interest item?), it then argues that “there is no automatic requirement to challenge the views of a contributor on a current affairs topic.”
This is a red herring. While no such automatic requirement exists there is an automatic duty to be objective and impartial. If the item gives an extended platform to just one viewpoint on a current affairs topic, and an opposing viewpoint is not given a broadly similar platform as part of the same item, or in a later item, then the only way that the item can be objective and impartial is if the broadcaster puts challenging questions/statements to the exclusively dominant viewpoint. Otherwise the item is a propaganda piece. So while there is no automaticrequirement to challenge the views of a contributor on a current affairs item, there is a requirement when it is the only way the item can be credibly described as objective and impartial.
Third, the BAI argue that “it is also legitimate for a broadcaster to choose an editorial focus on a current affairs story and, in this case, the programme makers chose to examine the topic of abortion from the perspective of a politician who had personal experience of a matter that is current public debate.” Again, this is a total red herring. The complainant didn’t question the editorial rights of RTE. It questioned the objectivity and impartiality of the item. Broadcasters are free to have whatever editorial focus they may wish, but it doesn’t follow from this that the can produce items that fail the test of objectivity and impartiality.
The BAI end by tacitly admitting that the item failed this test; it offered that the “audience may have benefited from the expression of other perspectives during the programme”. No such perspective was evident to any significant degree and therefore the item contravened both the Broadcasting Act and the BAI’s own Code. (RTE cannot argue that the item was balanced by a subsequent pro-life focused item: no such item has been aired either before or since on the Ray D’Arcy Show.)
